Increase in Homelessness

[Alex50]

This isn’t going to end well, AIBU the government should still block evictions for non rent payments

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53797657

We rent out a flat - it's not a business, just a property we have that is sitting doing nothing so might as well make it useful

And get a decent income from it while having a capital asset that has increased massively in value for the best part of 20 years.

You might not view it as a business, but as it's relying on capital to generate income, that's exactly what it is.

But I’m also seeing reports of a house price boom - which doesn’t make any sense if people are losing their jobs and lenders aren’t lending to people on furlough

I think what we're seeing is an artificial boom created by people moving sooner than they otherwise would have done to take advantage of the stamp duty holiday.

The same thing happened at the end of the 1980s when multiple tax relief on mortgage interest was abolished. It was followed by a massive crash.

It's a business expense. All businesses have some degree of risk, this is one of the risks that come with the territory for landlords.

That’s not true though is it? There has never been a risk that the government would block evictions until this year. It’s reasonable for a landlord to have the funds available to pay for an eviction if needs be, but expecting landlords to forgo rent and provide free housing is not reasonable.

They always claim to be running a professional business until something happens, then they are suddenly accidental landlords
Ain't that the truth!

@GoshHashana

I'm inclined to agree! A roof over your head is basic human need, first or second in Maslow's hierarchy, depending on how you look at it.

@LakieLady

Stamp duty isn’t huge for most people. About 3k on an average priced house. It still doesn’t make sense (to me) to save 3k now but potentially lose 30k if the market crashes in 6 months time.

Plenty of very professional businesses have been shut down because of the pandemic, but they aren’t expected to keep providing their services to customers when they have no income
Housing is not a service like pubs, restaurants, gyms, nail bars, hairdressers though is it?
I think housing is more like education, healthcare emergency services, clean water, roads to drive on....secure affordable home is a basic human need without which you cannot live a modern life.

We rent out a flat - it's not a business, just a property
In what sense is it not a business?
Presumably HMRC have you on record as running a business?
(Or is that what you mean when you say it's not a business ....you're not declaring the business turnover?)

[quote LakieLady]@GoshHashana

I'm inclined to agree! A roof over your head is basic human need, first or second in Maslow's hierarchy, depending on how you look at it.[/quote]
So is food, but when someone takes what Tesco’s provide without paying for it, they can call the police who will agree that they are thieving and breaking the law.

Exactly and professional landlords should have assessed business risks and have a contingency plan in place, like other businesses do
Good businesses dont keep servicing customers who don't pay for the service. They are free no say no more, so if landlords are expected to act as businesses they should I feed be free to evict.
.the issue is,exactly the opposite. Because social housing can't cope, Landlords are more and more expected to act as social housing providers whilst being taxed on it and given no security.

We're in a crisis. People will lose jobs and struggle. Sadly, some will see this as an option to get one over even when they can pay by reducing other outgoings.

There is no easy fix, but as it stands, LLs are treated as business owners and shouldn't be used by the government as scape goats.

@Heffalooomia, you can’t have it both ways.

You can’t say that being a landlord is both a professional business and a public service need like schooling.

If it’s the former, then the business deserves to be allowed to protect itself from unscrupulous customers. If it’s the latter, then it’s the government’s problem to deal with, not an individual landlords.

It's the government's problem to deal with
I agree with you.....the government needs to to regulate the housing market so that it works for the people who need homes.
Instead they have incentivised a dysfunctional housing market where property is unaffordable and people who need homes cannot access them.

The thing is homelessness, poverty effects the whole of society, desperate people do desperate things, it’s in everyone’s interest to make sure people are looked after, especially families.

@LakieLady what a ridiculous thing to suggest...you cannot just take a property, who then pays the mortgage, ground rent, service charge etc etc! Is the previous owner suddenly absolved of all responsibility?? Capital gains tax??

it’s in everyone’s interest to make sure people are looked after, especially families
Who says that doesn't account for the LL? Almost 50% of LLs only gave one property and likely vulnerable to any economic crisis.

@Alex50

The thing is homelessness, poverty effects the whole of society, desperate people do desperate things, it’s in everyone’s interest to make sure people are looked after, especially families.

That’s true, but surely you can see that blocking evictions for people that don’t pay their rent isn’t the answer?

@lakielady Well, fortunately we are not in totalitarian Communist state.

If blocking evictions is not the answer then what is the answer?

I'm not sure why you think landlords should pay for other people's housing. Should they buy their groceries for them as well?

we have capacity to house everyone in the country just about, the problem is more that housing is spread about in an inefficient way and the housing market is dysfunctional ....property prices are completely unrelated to the true value of property.
It's completely messed up because of the failure of governments to properly regulate it, of course many people in government are landlords and they have the power to make sure that the landlord's interests are protected.
if most government ministers were renters in a precarious property market where they faced homelessness I'm sure they would make different choices when it came to the housing market.
The choices made by governments reflect the fact that they are all wealthy property owners and in many cases owners of multiple properties.
we don't have government by the people for the people we have government by the wealthy for the benefit of the wealthy ☹️

Should they buy their groceries for them as well
If they had control over the supply of food and their desire to make profit had led to them artificially inflating the price of food such that normal people could not access it then yes I think they would have a moral duty to buy their groceries for them

Halting evictions in March was right, it wasn't ideal for anyone to be moving let alone to temporary housing but it's different now, if you cannot pay your rent or mortgage you need to move to somewhere you can afford on your wages/benefits. Landlords need the income, it's a business, one I'm grateful for because I'm renting between homes, we couldn't buy until divorce settlements were done. Short to medium term rentals and essential for mobility of the work force too (if you have a job offer 200 miles away you can't go on a social housing list or even buy that quickly)

of course many people in government are landlords and they have the power to make sure that the landlord's interests are protected.

That’s not true. Well, there may be lots of people in government that are landlords, but they aren’t all there ensuring that landlords have strong rights. Landlord rights are almost non existent, things are weighted very much in favour of tenants.

I’m sure it doesn’t feel like that to tenants who are good, and who pay their rent and still have to deal with rubbish landlords, but honestly, landlords interests really aren’t protected by the law or the government at all.

Landlords are 100% on their own if they get screwed over by tenants, the same cannot be said the other way round.

@Heffalooomia

Should they buy their groceries for them as well If they had control over the supply of food and their desire to make profit had led to them artificially inflating the price of food such that normal people could not access it then yes I think they would have a moral duty to buy their groceries for them

That’s ridiculous.

Having a little flat to rent out through inheritance doesn’t mean I have control over the supply of all flats and the power to artificially inflate the price of anything. The ‘profit’ you refer to doesn’t exist if a tenant isn’t paying their rent.

Yet you really think that individual landlords should provide free food for people indefinitely, regardless of any individual circumstances? Really, that’s a ridiculous viewpoint to have.

But surely when you choose between selling a property or renting it out you have to accept that there are pros and cons to each decision.